Ex Parte Huckins

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 17, 2011

11481319 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/481,319 07/05/2006 Jeffrey L. Huckins ITL.1037D1US (P17124D) 3333
21906 7590 08/18/2011
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2011 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JEFFREY L. HUCKINS
________________

Appeal 2009-008917
Application 11/481,319
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-008917
Application 11/481,319

2
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 2. These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Cordoba (US 7,009,512 B2; issued Mar. 7, 2006)
in view of Hue (US 2002/0126845 A1; published Sep. 12, 2002).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A security protocol may be implemented on a processor-
based system by providing a wireless signal to a handheld
device normally carried by the user. If a response is not
received, it may be determined that the user is not sufficiently
proximate to the device being accessed and that, therefore, the
person accessing the device is not authorized. An appropriate
security protocol may be implemented as a result.
(Abstract).
Independent claim 1 is representative:1
1. A method comprising:
establishing a wireless communication link between a
cellular telephone and a laptop computer system when within a
communication range;
authenticating a user of the cellular telephone as an
authorized user of the computer system using credential

1 Appellant argues claims 1 and 2 together as a group. See App. Br. 9-11;
Reply Br. 1-2. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-008917
Application 11/481,319

3
information stored in a portable identification module included
in the cellular telephone, the credential information transmitted
from the cellular telephone using the wireless link; and
monitoring the wireless link between the cellular
telephone and the computer system such that when the link is
interrupted an audible alarm on the cellular telephone is
generated.
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Cordoba discloses the claimed
step of monitoring the wireless link such that when the link is interrupted, an
audible alarm on the cellular telephone is generated (Ans. 3). The Examiner
more specifically explains that the microchips of Cordoba’s cellular
telephone and computer system may communicate via a Bluetooth, short
range wireless link, and that it is possible to adjust or vary the predetermined
distance at which the alarm triggers (Ans. 5).
Appellant contends that Cordoba does not teach the monitoring step of
claim 1 because Cordoba’s alarm is not triggered when the Bluetooth range
is exceeded (Reply Br. 1). Rather, the alarm is triggered at a distance less
than the maximum range of the Bluetooth connection, thereby indicating that
the alarm is triggered which the communication link is still in force (id).
Appellant also argues that claim 1calls for monitoring the communication
link, and this is different from monitoring the position of the sending and
receiving units (Reply Br. 2).

Appeal 2009-008917
Application 11/481,319

4
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. We understand the
Examiner’s position to be that the strength of a Bluetooth link’s signal
diminishes as the sending and receiving units are moved away from each
other, and that the Bluetooth link may be deemed to be interrupted when the
signal strength drops below some predetermined level, regardless of whether
the receiving unit can still detect the signal. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (noting that there is no ipsissimis verbis test for
determining whether a reference discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of
terminology is not required). Appellant has not provided any evidence that
the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim as well
as dependent claim 2, which is not separately argued.

DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections with respect to all pending
claims on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and
2 is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-008917
Application 11/481,319

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

rwk